Re: proposal: additional error fields

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: proposal: additional error fields
Дата
Msg-id 19904.1335903248@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: proposal: additional error fields  (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: proposal: additional error fields  (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Maybe no one is convinced by any of this, but the fact is that the
> SQLSTATE argument falls down when one considers that we aren't using
> it in many cases of errors that clearly are severe.

The reason that argument isn't convincing is that we *are* using a
SQLSTATE for every such message; it's just defaulted to XX000.  AFAICT,
it would be reasonable to treat all XX000 as alarm conditions until
proven different.  If a given message is, in fact, not supposed to be
"can't happen", then it shouldn't be going through elog().  We'd
probably be needing to fix some places that were lazily coded as elogs,
but under your proposal we would also have to touch every such place
... and thousands more besides.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: proposal: additional error fields
Следующее
От: Hannu Krosing
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?